1. Field of Invention
The present invention pertains to the field of golf clubs, specifically to a gas vortex generating linear adjuster for a mechanical golf club.
2. Background Art
The recreational sport played on a golf course utilizes many types of golf clubs with varying face angles. Generally golf clubs are swung in an arc starting above the users head. This creates a club face velocity that imparts kinetic energy to the ball positioned on the ground or a tee. A shorter arc traveled by the club results in the transfer of less kinetic energy thereby varying the distance the ball travels. A key element of playing the game requires' controlling the precise direction and distance the ball travels along the course of play. Many users find playing the game of golf extremely challenging or unable to participate. To that end, many prior art attempts have been submitted to overcome this problem.
Clark disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 769,939 issued Sep. 13, 2004 a means of adding additional energy imparted to the ball by the release of energy stored in a mechanical compressed spring. Driving the ball occurs by swinging the club head in a downward arc contacting the ball thereby triggering the energy release. The practical success of this concept was limited since most of the difficulty occurred by a swing error due to a heavier club and user proficiency. Additionally the ball compression energy release, the club head mechanical spring energy release and the club head velocity kinetic energy release will not result in the sum of the three sources and thereby, not providing any improvement.
Celestin discloses in French Pat. No. 1,181,539 issued Jun. 15, 1959 a golf club that uses an explosive charge to add additional energy to the club head velocity created by the user swinging the club. The club design apparatus being heavier is likely to cause an errant swing failing to trigger the device. Improved performance in driving the ball would be poor because the compressed energy in the ball would not occur at the precise instant the explosive charge occurred.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,170,357 issued Oct. 9, 1979 to Greer also employs an explosive charge designed to add kinetic energy to a golf ball when detonated by a swinging motion of a club face. This approach is not helpful for the same reason as that of a patent by Clark. Swinging a club with the added weight and hitting a sweet spot detonator to add explosive energy to a ball being compressed with kinetic energy is extremely difficult. The stored energy sources will not release simultaneously, thereby failing to solve the problem. The preceding patents require the user to swing a club, which is difficult even under conventional circumstances by a proficient user. Therefore the very problem the patents attempt to address and improve is defeated by the very means utilized.
The prior art issued Jun. 4, 1996 to Taylor et al discloses in U.S. Pat. No. 5,522,594 a golf club designed to impart kinetic energy upon a ball without swinging a club. Instead it is placed in a static position adjacent to a ball waiting for an impact by a striker plate being actuated by an explosive charge. The Taylor invention includes a hollow head containing a piston attached to the shaft portion of an external strike plate that seats into a recess in the retracted position. A rod is guided in and out of the hollow head through a bushing-bearing located on the clubface. The explosive charge contained in a cartridge holder fitted into a slot that positioned the active cartridge above an orifice in the holler head. A handle with a holler shaft that contains a trigger device with a firing, pin rod extended into the holler head designed to fire a cartridge releasing high-pressure gas into a holler head when the user actuates the trigger, thereby imparting kinetic energy upon the ball.
There were many problems with the Taylor invention that resulted in poor performance. The tremendous force caused the strike plate return spring to deform and the piston to detach from the rod of the strike plate. The high pressure gas failed to burn completely leaving a residue that caused the piston to jam after a few cycles. The bushing bearing used could not be lubricated since lubrication jells when combined with burned powder. The hollow head being made of aluminum failed to withstand the wear factor. The cartridge holder being shaped with a flat surface failed to maintain an adequate seal thereby releasing high-pressure gas, thereby reducing the kinetic energy produced. Aside from the poor performance there were no means to adjust the ball travel distance.
Another prior art issued Oct. 6, 1998 Taylor attempt in U.S. Pat. No. 5,816,927 failed to achieve a clean complete powder burn resulting in parts jamming. Attempt made to adjust the distance of the ball travel failed because most of the high-pressure impulse of energy was dissipated on the top of the piston before reaching the port designed to decrease the pressure. This invention provided a hollow head fitted with an internal cylinder containing a piston and rod attached to an external strike plate. This patent did not address the piston rod bearing lubrication problem. The means taught by Taylor, failed to change the distance the ball would travel in any fashion. The high-pressure cartridges were contained in ducts around a wheel circumference and fired by a firing pin protruding through a hollow shaft into the head assembly. The fired cartridges discharged into the center of the wheel, thereby passing through an injection port in the cylinder. The cone shaped center of the cartridge wheel fail to maintain an adequate seal, thereby allowing high-pressure gas to enter the adjacent cartridge ducts causing failure. The huge amount of volume between the top of the piston and the top of the cylinder created a premature drop in pressure thereby causing an incomplete powder burn which fouled the piston after a few cycles of operation. The retractor means design attempt failed to retract the piston because the pressure volume required for the retracting action did not exist. The attempted buffer spring failed to be reliable. The head casting structure proved to be impractical, costly and difficult to manufacture. Also the associated parts failed to withstand the dynamic operating pressures involved, namely the retraction concept, the tilt safety proved to be costly and impractical.